Is Jack Straw a racist for requesting that women remove their veils?

[magicfarawaytree]

just watching the news. didnt personally think he had done anything terrible in asking.

Thank you for your support - but think about it. How can I report him? He is blatantly racist and also impossible to work with, but they can't sack him can they! However, I wouldn't want to work with another man like him - he is a nightmare and it prevents me doing my job properly.

I think this thread is going to go on forever!!!

Not fair, Fuzzy.

I am not "terified that this country is becoming Muslim."

My concern about a possible future where Sharia is implemented in some areas of the UK is that the usual safeguards, Human Rights laws, for example, will not apply to it's implementation.

Cam - no - I wouldn't last 10 seconds in the civil service - I think it's the 'fascist' bit I have a problem with...and the confusion between serious initiatives to look at the way people are talked about and dealt with in a context of equal opportunities (i.e lets challenge writing everyone 'else' off as Pakis, Niggers, Mongs, Spazes and Chinkies, and the occasional lapse of common sense (which i can well imagine occurring in the Civil service!)which has been whipped up into a frenzy to undermine the serious issues. Most of the stoies abour 'pc gone mad!!' have lingered since the 80s, and i was questioning, in any case, whether this actually makes people afraid to be british, and if so, why thier sense of identity - if it so worthy of celebration - is so flimsy!

Anyway....as I suspect that I am one of the poeple considered to be a 'pc fascist' because I do take the way we use language to refer to peope seriously, and frequently say so on MN, I am even more dubious that it is ME that is not allowing epoel to celebrate their culture!

nulnulcat, that's true that some womena re not veiled through their own choice, but that's ahrdl;y exclusive to Islam- loads of women (all?) do things every day that aren't through their own chpice

lots of women don't wear short skirts / return (or do return) to work / go out to pubs etc etc etc because their aprtners or aprents wouldn't like it

I really do think it's unlikely that Shari'a will become alew in thsi country, in any areas. What has happened though is that the Muslims have in some palces adopted a separate culturala rea- if you examine Islam that's actually encouraged, in that theoretically that's what they allowed the non-heretics (people of The Books- Christianity, Judaism) to do within their Islamic states (historially, we're talking duringt he priginal groewth of Islam). There's a name for theis protectorate staus, which escapes me right now.

I remember when we covered it at Uni last year thinking 'that was relatively respectful, especially for the times'- so imo it would be wrong tor efuse toa ford the same respect in return, iyswim.

Of course, what happened to Hindus etc was another matter entirely

FWIW there's a big Muslima rea down the road in Newport and I have never even had an eyelid batted at me walking down in a short skirt or whatever; and when we went to the Mosque this Spring the chap there found my (then) pink hair and interesting studenty garb hilarious, NOT in any way offensive

I don't think that the English way of life is being threatened, but as a Christian I am saddened by the fact that my faith is being eradicated from our culture, and I do not blame other faiths for this but 'liberals' who are intolerant of Christianity. There is a kind of racism when those from minority faiths are encouraged to celebrate their faiths but Christians aren't - it's almost saying that white people should know better. I don't find 'Gerry Springer - The Opera' offensive (although I do that nutter who claims to speak for Christians like myself and get it banned) but I do find it offensive when on CBeebies they tell the story of Noah or the Nativity without mentioning God. I can't do 'my thing' because I want to watch quality religious broadcasting on television (such as the old Everyman programme)and it no longer exists. And the void is being filled on cable by the fundamantalists whose right-wing beliefs I find offensive and scarey.

In Norfolk a local council banned Christmas lights and blamed local Muslims for being offended. It later turned out that it had been agreed to scrap them to save money. In Sussex a church was banned from advertising its carol concert on a library notice board even though the same library hosted an Eid party for children. When challenged the white librarian ranted about Christians wanting to spoil things for little Muslim children. Neither does anything for inter-faith relations.

I feel no blame for our colonial past or slavery - my family are migrant Irish who lived in the East London slums and who had nothing to do with it. I do feel guilt over our treatment of asylum seekers today and our warmongering, even though I didn't vote for the present government.

I think it is a beautiful thing for a woman to freely choose to wear a veil as a sign of her faith. I think the reason so many find it offensive even when it is done through choice is because the very idea of faith is abhorrent. I also fully applaud sharia-compliant mortgages. And I don't understand why so many people are shocked that Muslims say they put their faith before their country - so do I, and most Christians I know say the same.

Bubble, i think the whole constitution of the country would have to be taken apart and put back together again to alow geographical areas where laws were completely different to others. Our consyitution simply does not allow for it. those areas would have to be separatly ruled under a separate constitution. It would have to be, for instance, voyted for by a parliamnet which is notably lacking in muslim representatives, let alone a MAJORITY! Muslims in total are in a minority in this country, the majority of those would not vote for such a system - and if they did, they would be wildly outnumbered in parliament...I just can't see how it could happen!

In Birmingham we had "Winterval" instead of Christmas a few years ago. Don't know what that was all about, but probably a few silly councillors.

Well nearlythree, I certainly put my ethics abovce my country, which for me is comparative. I don't have a religion, but do try and ive by my ethical code (which is notr dissimilar to vhristianity, or indeed some aspects of Islam- Zakat (charitable giving) and the financial laws are, imo, fab).

I think there are a lot of unfderinformed prats out there twisitng things in a despearte attempt to be PC. for example, jesus is listed as a (admittedly human but then some Christians believe that too) Prophet within Islam, as is Noah- Noah is also the first covenant in Judaism.
I did an essay recently on whether the God was the same: there is nor doubt historically that He is. Of course,t here are plenty of toher faiths- Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainisnm, Sikhism etc etc etc- but why is it always blamed to 'The Muslims'?

(And just a thought, but why does everyone also assume the The Muslims are a homogenous grouping anyway? In Newport the Sunnia nd Shi'a community centres are very distinct)

I am actually very saddened by the fact that Christianity is diminishing in the UK. Islam is not in any way in opposition to Christianity, in fact when Spitting Image had a puppet of Jesus it was Muslims who protested. Personally I get very angry about blasphemies against Christianity and do not like it when people like Madonna use religion for their own entertainment (she would probably call it art .

We have had this blasphemy discussion before so I don't want to rehash it but I just wanted to point out that I have great respect for many branches of Christianity and for Christian peoples' right to practise and enjoy their religion.

Apologies for typing / lack of capitalisation- no offences intended, cannot find glasses, will go look )

As a liberal, I see it as a purely negative doctrine.

I don't "respect" Islam, Christianity or the fans of West Ham FC, and don't see why groups should have "rights".
I think I should not have certain rights. I don't want the right to stop them acting in ways that do no physical harm, and that includes speech and dress.

The state acting in my name has no inherent right to stop people believing any damned fool thing they like. I see the right to be wrong as a basic human right, since once you start only alllowing "reasonable" beliefs, it goes downhill very quickly.
I see a big danger of this , where you only get treated fairly if you're a member of a big gang, which will grow stronger in "protecting" people.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of that prat Strew, Moslems and sympathisers are mounting a vigorous defence of "Islamic" clothing.
But what if you're a member of a small, weak faith ?
What if you simply don't like certain "normal" clothes ? One woman I know, really really hated wearing trousers, not religious, just an aversion.

The state should remain neutral, and scrupulously so. The easiest way if the French/American model where you can sue the government if it gets involved too much, and you suffer.
The problem with "supporting all faiths", in a democracy is that the smaller ones get shafted, or as we see so often political correctness means that the state favours some groups.
We then get into leapfrogging. For instance the old Sunday trading laws gave exemptions to firms where Jews formed a majority of the directors. Moslems might want this as well, not unreasonably, and 7th day adventists would want their cut as well.
But where do you draw the line ?
The Plymoth Bretheren ? The Moonies ? A group that meets in someone's flat ?

Interesting point DC about the minor religions; we had a visit last week at uni from sdome Jains (minor religion, esp. here, someehwhere around 1 mill worldwide iirc) and they cover their mouths to speak, so they don't harm any creatures (for that include micro organisms) by breathing them in.

Doesn't that also equate to a veil in terms of effect on communications?

I don't believe in groups rights either; I DO believe strongly in individual rights and as you say, that includes to worship whatever you want- hey if you want to worship dung beetles go for it Is ay, so long as no one is harmed).

A veil is a piece of fabric. There's so much scary stuff going on in this world (Darfur? Iraq? Pollution? Child abuse?) that we should realistically be far too busy worrying about that. Especially politicians; OK discuss veils if you want, but first could you kindly sort out the priorities- schols, NHS, crime etc etc etc- although you may find you're out of time after.

(And the Brethren are OK DC! Lots of them back home, lovely peaceful people in the main)

on the issue of Shariah law taking precedence over UK law in the UK.
my opinion is that if a community decides that it does, and in practice behaves as if it does, then in effect it does. The test would be to see which takes precedence if there were a conflict between the two. I know a little about UK law, I haven't studied Shariah law.

I do think Jack Straws comments have been blown out of perpotion.
I do not see why a muslim woman can hide her face in a passport photo when i have to show mine.
If someone choose's to live in this country you must live by the laws here and not expect special ones made up for you.
I went to a muslim country a few months back and when going to the older parts of the town and the souks i tied back my hair, wore long trousers and a long sleaved shirt, its called respect, although i am not a muslim i WAS in a muslim country and i was respectful of their way of life.
My DS2s best friend is a muslim and when he came to tea i made sure he was given food that was allowed, again respect for the other person.
And when DS2 goes there for tea i would not expect them to give him bacon just because he likes it, he is a guest in their home and must behave accordinley.
Im not saying ban veils, a person has a right to ware or not ware what ever they want to, but common sence needs to come in here somewhere.
Also you find in a lot of things its the gardeian reading librals that say ohh better ban christmas because we cant upset so and so, when so and so could not care less, its just another form of racistness, saying oh i know better what so and so wants/need as they are to stupid/weak to stand up for themself.
In short....its a f*cked up world we live in

Not quite as badly F**d up as you seem to think it is Kimi - I don't know where you got the idea that anyone can wear a veil in a passport photo.

Re; history of veil. The Quaran makes no direct reference to it other than the Prophet Mohammed's suggestion that if any woman's beauty was so great as to be a cause of fighting amongst men, then she should cover her beauty when in the company of men. The wearing of the Niqab stems from the Saudi/Wahabi branch of Islam. (The Taliban follow the Wahabi doctine, to give you an idea of how 'moderate' it is.) Personally I believe that any woman should have the right to wear what she likes. Although, as withany decision you make, it's best if it is a fully informed one. So, before woman decides whether they want to fully cover their face or not, they should be aware that quite large numbers of people find it disconcerting and, in some cases, rude. That seems fair enough to me.

Hooleymama, I don't think the precedence would take long to work out if The Islamic Cailphate of lambeth started stoning people to death on Clapham Common.
Observing the shariah encompasses many things which are completely uncontroversial in a legal sense, and come 'beneath the law' as it were - and cover lots of areas of domestic behaviour such as the observance of Ramadan, or a duty to give money to charity (afaik). People the world over 'observe' practices which have nothing to do with the law, religious and cultural. Bubble is talking about established areas where Shariah IS the law - even in matters which are covered by the laws of the U.K,

My (disowned) SIL went to her childs school recently and told them that no way was her child going to learn about Islam and the * Quaran.
She was quite proud of this, but then she would win the prize for being the most think and ignorent person you could ever meet.
People like her dont help they just cause more hate by not understanding another persons view, weather it is right/wrong or just plain stupid.
My DS1 has studied the quaran in his RE class along with most other religions.

As for the passport thing their was something on the news about a reporter in a vail walking through airport sercurity and passport control without being asked to remove it.

In totalr everese I have had erm debates with my son's school because they won't cover Islam (It's a C of E school but as it is the only catchment school I believe I am quite within my rights to ignore that- had there been a choice I WOULD LOVE to go elsewhere)

Course, I am a degree level RE student and have a copy of the Qur'an on my desk as I speak. Because I want to understand poeple, not just vilify their differences. As an Atheist that goes for all religions. Christinaity very much included.

Blu, Zakat (the giving of alms) in Islam is important enough to be classes as a pillar of Islam- there are five pillars iirc, all compulsory for a Muslim, although naturally exemption is given for poverty .Islam is good like that- exemption from Haj, Ramadan fasting... it's actually a humane religion. I do NOT like Shari'a law because of the focus on capital punishment, but I do respect the fact that it was initially established as a method by and large for retaining community structure.

But can i just repeat, I do NOT support capital punishment / corporate punishment of any kind. Being a pinko liberal 'n all.

Well Blu, stoning people in this country would conflict with UK law (no shit Sherlock)

Bit of an extreme and unlikely example you chose, but what you?re saying doesn?t disagree with my comment does it?

I'm sure there are Islamic communities observing the various requirements of Shariah law. I couldn't say whether they are following it in conflict with UK law. I would be concerned if that were the case. Would you?

(And you're right about the Veil in the Qur'an, it is a cultural tradition arising from the Hadith, the religious writings that inform Muslims. IIRC my professor stated the advice related to Muhammad's wives, and that traditional culture drew it from there. I missed that lecture though, just got notes.

hooleymum - read further back. ALL my comments on this matter are in response to bubble's bellief that it is possible that some areas of the UK will be fully under shariah law within 20 years - i.e AS the law.

I do not think this is either likely or possible..but presumably if it was this is the sort of extreme example which could occasionally occur in Bubble's vision.

Can someone surgically remove me from this thread, lease?

I've only met one Bretheren and he seemd like a good guy, though he writes books where on average 10,000 people die in horrible ways.
But with respect, that's irrelevant.
The state should have no position on them at all, although as it happens they get certain exemptions under tax becuase of their views on interest (please don't tell the Moslems)

Actually, may Christians also have an issue with interest, and they used to ban it altogether.

Sharia is not any worse than the Bible as a basis for law. Except that Christianity has been largely de-fanged, and they're not allowed to brun witches, rape their wives, or hang Jews any more.

We have a historical fugure, that Moslems lack.
Queen Elizabeth I. After about a thousand years of various factions of Christianity murdering each other in witless hordes, she came up with the idea of not giving a toss.

For the subsequent 400 years, Britain has thus often been a haven for refugees from the vicious end of mass superstition.

The principal British virtue is not tolerance, but apathy.